Done*

actually yeah, there are more doors beneath that

lmao

it might be extra thermal covering

Lmao

lol u haven't even thought of the fact that there are 2 doors within that compartment

CGI ISS SWIMMING POOL: https://imgur.com/a/BXe4rnO

@Brunderwood You've got heart, you're a flat earther in the making, you're willing to do the objective research

https://youtu.be/E4nL-eoqBPA

Nah mate

Sorry but there’s no changing my mind 😂😂

idk if its a spehre or flat nothing is changing my mind at this point except rock solid undeniable proof.

they need to let us explore antarctica i think that would settle it

explore antarctica or a 4 mile flat piece of material unbendable and straight and a 24/7 live hd autofocus camera on the moon pointed at earth

all 3 of those would make it undeniable one way or the other more video footage from space agencies that are unedited like an astronaut from inside the iss to outside suiting up and going out the airlock nonstop video unedited

instead of debating it we should try to think of an experiment that would prove curvature or not

i think 4 miles is all u need and it cant be optical becuase of perspective angular resolution refraction

Optical experiments are just fine. A 4 mile long solid slab is very implausible, just go out to sea and do your own observations of distant objects as a reference for whether there is convex curve or not.

Or observe distant mountains to see how they are oriented relative to the other to test curvature vs flatness

optical experiments are not just fine. u cant see how they can be flawed due to refraction perspective or angular resolution ?

You have a point, those can be used as ill defined, unsubstantiated, and misapplied excuses to explain away observations of convex curve.
If they were anything scientific in this context, they could be accounted for, because they would be quantified and well explained. But instead, they are just after the fact ad hoc additions each time, so you dismiss optical observations altogether (pseudoscience alert!).

But to be serious, those aren't problems because the onus is on the flatties to demonstrate that these are variables interfering with what we see. While observational fact shows convexity to the earth that doesn't need a hypothetical to explain.

no the optical observations are illusions at the horizon clearly that has been displayed by the boat thing or us seeing too far

😆

@jeremy

2 questions yes or no 1. when u look out at the ocean do you observe the water rising above ur feet to be at your eyeline 2. is the water really going higher than ur feet above ur eyeline

yes or no

to both please

I think my drawing depicts it good enough to explain this effect and how it reflects physical reality

ok but answer my 2 questions please

they are simple easy to answer

1. It appears to rise towards your eyeline, yes.
2. No.

ok so our first observation when we look out at the sea does not match reality

im glad u agree

idk what u were arguing about

its like pulling teeth with u sometimes lol

My drawing proves otherwise, I show an observer looking up the farther the ground extends out while it remains below their feet

Perspective, simple,

whoa ur saying our observation of the water going above our feet to meet our eyeline is correct and matches what is really h apenning ?

Yes, because of angles relative to the observer. Pay close attention to my above image.
So your point isn't really going to stand.

<:CHECK6:403540120181145611> @Vorka has been warned
```
reason: Bad word usage
```